Arizona Supreme Court, 1965

Tiller v. Tiller

Arizona Supreme Court · Decided June 3, 1965 · Udall, Lockwood, Struckmeyer, Bernstein, McFarland

402 P.2d 573; 98 Ariz. 156; 1965 Ariz. LEXIS 252 (Pacific Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

38 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Mayberry v. Stambaugh (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024)
Luna v. Peinado (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024)
Sedillo v. Cooley (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025)
Robledo v. Robledo (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025)
Picture Rocks Fire District v. Updike (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985)
Geiler v. Arizona Bank (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975)
City Van & Storage v. Industrial Commission (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975)
Air East, Inc. v. Wheatley (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971)
Town of Cottonwood v. Evans (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971)
Meinhard-Commercial Corp. v. Oxford Shops, Inc. (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971)
Parag v. Walters (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970)
Arizona Tank Lines, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970)
Arizona Corp. Commission v. Construction Trucking Service (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970)
Ghyselinck v. Buchanan (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970)
National Exhibition Company v. Marx (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969)
Beck v. Beck (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969)
O'Neil v. Aye (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969)
Dolph v. Cortez (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968)
Del Castillo v. Harbour (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968)
Porter v. Pfahl (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968)
City of Tucson v. Echo Ridge Cooperative Corp. (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967)
Gallatin v. State Ex Rel. Herman (Ariz. Ct. App. 1966)
Banks v. Bailey (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026)
Mapes v. Mapes (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026)
Crook v. Crook (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

UDALL, Justice.

This is an appeal in a divorce action wherein the appellant, Lucille Tiller, was the plaintiff and the appellee, Sam Tiller, *157 was the defendant, the plaintiff having received a judgment of divorce which incorporated and adopted a property settlement made by the parties. Subsequently a controversy arose regarding the nature of the payments to be made to the wife as result of the property settlement and the subsequent judgment incorporating the settlement. Appellant contends that the order is enforceable by contempt proceedings. The appellee contends that the payments were a contractual obligation and therefore not enforceable by contempt. The trial judge held for the appellee.

Appellant has raised several errors challenging the judgment of the trial court. Appellee has not favored us with a brief and this case has been submitted for decision under Rule 7(a) 2, Rules of the Supreme Court, 17 A.R.S. As there are debatable issues this Court will assume that the failure to file an answering brief is a confession of reversible error on the part of the appellee. Wilson v. Wilson, 94 Ariz. 353, 385 P.2d 226 (1963); Siemers v. Randall, 94 Ariz. 302, 383 P.2d 753 (1963) ; Barrett v. Hiney, 94 Ariz. 133, 382 P.2d 240 (1963); Tom v. Baca, 93 Ariz. 96, 378 P.2d 912 (1963) ; Nelson v. Nelson, 91 Ariz. 215, 370 P.2d 952 (1962); Stover v. Resinar, 84 Ariz. 387, 329 P.2d 1107 (1958); Dowding v. Smithers, 82 Ariz. 261, 311 P.2d 967 (1957).

Judgment reversed.

LOCKWOOD, C. J., STRUCKMEYER, V. C. J., and BERNSTEIN and McFARLAND, JJ., concurring.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.